5 posts • joined Thursday 4th December 2008 13:32 GMT
IMHO the driving force behind all this multi-core CPU development has been nothing to do with desktop\workstation performance or applications. Illusrated by the lack of multi-core aware applications for desktop computing. It is about virtualisation.
How about shoving some of these bad boys in an ESX server and doing some VM benchmarking as i suspect that is the area Intel will be shipping most of these (initially at least)?
Paris - because she likes her bad boys....
So we can expect it to cost 5x as much as every other HDTV and be incompatible with everything else you have in your living room - despite containing comodity components a la everything else apple makes?
"errrrrrr, but you pay the extra 15 billion dollars for your mac book because it's QUALITY not like that Dell rubbish".
Bollocks. Not with my own hard earned i won't be! No thanks i will stick with my sony\samsung and a $5 plug-in sensor like wii!
End of an era
Used this baby since FS2 - might even have been on the Atari ST and pre-Microsoft. i was 6-7 years old ish. used every version since and built my current pc specifically around getting the best out of FSX.
i have to disagree with the people complaining about lagginess. if you try and run fs2000 on a 286 with16MB RAM then it's going to hurt.... fsx is a beast there's not doubt, but personally i'm more than happy with what my Q6600, BadAxe2 mobo, 4Gb ram with vista, and a Geforce 8800 GTS (320MB) can do with it. dx10 'preview' a little dodgy in accelleration though.
this is a travesty. fully understand the 'strategic direction' etc. and the world\home\front-room domination game they're playing, but we don't care about that. we dont' care who we buy what from and what sticker is on the box (unless there's mac boys around!). if it's good, it will get bought.
whereas FS has been a mainstay of profitability for microsoft with a long-lasting loyal customer base (albeit a little niche). and this is how it ends?!
how many of us who use FSX\FS9 have been using this product since the early days? buying upgrade after upgrade. why? because it was a good product (little details side).
interestingly (and with the obligatory wikipedia 'pinch of salt'), have a butchers at this:-
end of an era. what a travesty. hopefully fsx will keep us going for a while - the aces guys should form up their own company and make quality add ons for fsx. i would happily pay reasonable prices that would enable me to eek more out of fsx. i'm sure others would too.
boo microsoft. (and i'm a secret fan boy of their corp enterprise products for my sins.) i think they've dropped the ball here.
So how does the 32bit Enterprise Edition of Windows 2003 enable access to more than 4GB of RAM? It is 32-bit, yet i have just installed 16GB RAM in a proliant running 32-bit 2003 Enterprise to run SQL server.
Is it not an MS licensing thing?
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month